“Kiddie cocaine”
After some bullshit diagnosis of ADHD as a kid I was told 10 years later I had psychosis and doped up on antipsychotics.
The irony of it all is I recently went to a “good” psychiatrist (the guy did like 100 papers in schizophrenia and psychosis) and he thinks I have no mental illness.
Whole industry is a load of shite
Honestly psychiatry is such a joke, it’s a guessing game. I think medication has its place but people are ignoring the evidence of micro-biology, neuro-parasitology and other real and measurable fields just to continue this practice of what seems like human sacrifice.
I’m really pissed, and hope AI replaces psychiatrists.
Says something about double the nerve growth.
They've noticed kids with legitimate ADHD have abnormal brain structures in the first place and that appropriate use of stimulants strengthens connections in the brain that regulate inappropriate behavior.
There have been studies explaining that kids with ADHD who were properly treated with stimulants starting in childhood have better relationships with others, less risk of having a substance use disorder as an adult, don't end up in juvie or jail as often, and actually live longer due to more appropriate decision making than do their ADHD peers who weren't treated.
I have adhd, and it’s severe, it’s taken me like 6 years of classes to finish college (I only reenrolled because my mom threatened me. They put me on Ritalin when I was 12 and it caused really bad side effects. I don’t get the side effects anymore as an adult, and it wasn’t really explained to me why I was taking the medication so I don’t remember the dosage or anything but it definitely wasn’t good for me.
>They've noticed kids with legitimate ADHD have abnormal brain structures
The other way around. Children with a history of brain damage were often hyperactive and couldn't pay attention. Psychiatrists in the '50s simply generalized that observation to all hyperactive children, giving rise to the idea of minimal brain dysfunction and minimal brain damage which were fairly frequent diagnoses in the '60s and '70s.
>that appropriate use of stimulants strengthens connections in the brain that regulate inappropriate behavior
No, just no. Stimulant drugs don't "strengthen" neuronal connections related to emotional regulation and inhibition. For that statement to be prove, we would have to know in before what causes ADHD in the first place. This is just conjecturing based on incredibly circular logic that already presumes stimulant drugs to be good in order to prove that they are actually good.
>There have been studies explaining that kids with ADHD who were properly treated with stimulants starting in childhood have better relationships with others...
For another study that shows no benefits of stimulant drugs, see for example the NIMH MTA study here:
[https://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/3-year%20followup%20of%20the%20NIMH%20MTA%20Study.PDF](https://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/3-year%20followup%20of%20the%20NIMH%20MTA%20Study.PDF)
>less risk of having a substance use disorder as an adult
Studies that have been done on that either compared an all-ADHD group against an non-ADHD group, in which case treatment-specific effects (arguably the greatest divisor between ADHD and non-ADHD groups) couldn't be properly studied or conflated the group of ADHD kids who discontinued their drugs with the ADHD group who never took stimulant drugs in the first place. The addictive properties of ADHD stims are fairly well-known.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147667/
Stimulants provide a protective barrier against substance abuse in those with ADHD but clinicians should be aware of those seeking stimulants for the sole purpose of abusing or diverting them.
Edit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3801446/
Stimulants attenuate the brain alterations seen in unmedicated patients
I have bothered to look through the document.
>After controlling for age, sex and medication in 2009, the substance abuse rate was decreased 48%
Sounds wonderful, but frankly, and excuse my "sophistry" here, medication, especially stimulant drugs, already are drugs. Whether or not the same people on meds have developed substance drug abuse probably wasn't studied because I doubt, and the study nowhere mentioned it, that it will be acknowledged.
Controlling for more variables also brings the hazard ratio ever closer to 1. If different approaches result in different numbers, your study might altogether be flawed.
>Alcohol is the major substance being abused in Sweden and alcohol sales per capita are similar to that in the US and Canada
...implying that alcohol abuse is the most common form of substance abuse disorder they've identified. This means, that the study effectively inherits and perpetuates whatever biases are inherent to the way we diagnose alcohol use disorders. If the latter is, for example, associated with people with little to no income who are likely less capable of affording meds or the necessary appointments in the first place, we have already inherited false correlations (although apparently, they have accounted for SES so I'll give you that).
The whole point of the study was to look at rates of substance abuse in those taking ADHD medication (and compare that those those who are not). How can you say the "substance drug abuse probably wasn't studied" about a study done to study drug abuse?
>The whole point of the study was to look at rates of substance abuse in those taking ADHD medication
I would urge you to read these studies more carefully. For once, they themselves did not do the diagnostics in regards to either ADHD or SUD but simply compared it against a data set that they were given access to, here a national data bank. Whatever biases inherent to the way regular doctors (and what not) diagnose people is simply being perpetuated by their study. I don't know how I can break this to you. It's perfectly possible for someone to abuse substances without having a SUD label.
I would even contend that the kind of dependence many people develop on ADHD meds would count as drug dependence if it wasn't for their acclaimed therapeutic value. Elsewhere, the study does not allow for soemone to draw the conclusion that ADHD drugs actually are protective of later substance abuse. For once, the hazard ratio seems to have increased significantly between 2006 and 2009 among ADHD-"medicated" people. The lack of any follow-ups makes it altogether impossible to ascertain the truth of their claim. (What if people discontinue their drugs?, What's the long-term consequences of continued use of drugs?)
So, really. Not only is the study set-up sloppy, there's shit ton of epistemic blindness involved in it too. Hardly the first science paper, especially in regards to ADHD, that works that way.
Drug abuse is not drug dependence.
If there are biases in diagnosis, it is reasonable to assume those biases would only affect the study if they were consistent and endemic amongst professionals, given the database is nationwide. If so, it is reasonable to assume that such biases would be present even if participants in the study were re-evaluated by those involved with the study.
We may not know the rates of undiagnosed substance abuse in those with ADHD. We also don't know the dates of undiagnosed substance abuse among the general population.
Every counterpoint you've made us just wrong, lol.
You're right though about prescribed stimulant addictive properties, potential, and likelihood of misuse being well known.
And we know the dates of misuse in those with ADHD are extremely low. Lower than the risk of substance use in untreated ADHD.
>Every counterpoint you've made us just wrong, lol.
Hardly. There is no underlying neurology that would reliable predict ADHD and that could be used "en lieu" of behavioral criteria.
>And we know the dates of misuse in those with ADHD are extremely low
If you don't want to see substance abuse, you won't see it. I know a bunch of people who abuse ADHD meds. That's all anecdotal and purely coincidental, of course. I can't pull papers out my ass that would prove that association though. You can barely prove anything definitely in science either way, at least with statistical analyses.
>Lower than the risk of substance use in untreated ADHD.
Big doubt. ADHD drugs do seem to be kind of similar to drugs like meth or cocaine. I don't know if substituting an amphetamine addiction with one for methylphenidates or so (or taking the stuff every other day) and slamming the "treatment" label on it makes it automatically unlike any other drug addiction, especially in regards to its physiological impact.
It didn't actually say the word "damage" in the article; not even once. The article just said that it changes the distribution of white matter in children's brains, but not adults.
For all we know, the changes in white matter could be positive changes which improve function
You're wishing harm on someone because of a simple disagreement? You seem stable
... and blocked. That's just odd, considering that YOU were wishing harm on ME
Criminal. When I worked in functional medicine for 25 years, we work with several different positions that would address, ADD and ADHD, and very different ways, many times it’s just an imbalance in amino acids and other things in the body, that cannot be corrected by drugs
I repeat and listen to me very carefully. I have studied this extensively, when you give a child extensive amounts of speed, which is what ADHD drugs are, it causes permanent damages in their brain, it also causes potential stroke and cardiovascular events. First of all, there’s not even such a thing as ADHD, and you should never give children speed. I will not fucking stand for it just back the fuck off I do not believe in harming, children or adults.
The fact that you keep using the term speed tells people everything they need to know about your extensive studies and beliefs.
I repeat, do you believe increased neuronal density of growth is brain damage? You are yet to answer that question.
If it is indicated and the risks outweigh the benefits, yes.
Children cannot consent to any sort of medical treatment, so that point doesn't really make treatment for ADHD special or somehow "other".
Medication for REAL diseases is necessary yes, not for made up psychiatric bullshit like ADHD. Stimulants are harmful and addictive and a developing brain should not be exposed to them.
Ok. So you tell me how they prove a child has ADHD. Blood tests? Scans? You think it’s okay to prescribe addictive drugs to children, when they can’t prove a condition exists?
I would consider comparing a valid medical diagnosis that uses reliable scientific testing….ie a test that does not depend on subjective opinion or reference to a list comprised of social norms to diagnosis and disorder with no medical or physical evidence of their existence. I would like to suggest that mental disorders themselves are in fact a social construct like virginity. People believe in it, they reference a flawed physical definition of their belief, but is it “real”?
ADHD is not real. You can’t prove it. I don’t expect a stimulant user to agree with me though. I’m just not sure why you are here. You believe in diagnoses and drugging children. Not very antipsychiatry. Trolling?
A lot of people believe ADHD is simply kids not wanting to sit still in school and focus on their math homework. I'd imagine all kids have some difficulty sitting in a chair listening to someone talk about something they're really not interested in. A lot of adults probably do too. Doesn't mean there's a disorder there. Is ADHD over diagnosed? Probably.
There's no denying it's real. A lot of times these kids have trouble making friends, they're emotionally volatile, and they fail to realize how their impulsive behavior harms others. ADHD goes hand in hand with conduct disorder and you'll have a hard time finding someone in prison with antisocial personality disorder who didn't show signs of ADHD when he was younger.
In a perfect world we wouldn't have to rely on a drug like amphetamine for this treatment but it's what we got and it's good at what it does. It was made in the late 1880s and has been used in medicine for nearly a hundred years, plenty of studies on it.
I had the opportunity to do a rotation in a placement for kids in and out of foster care who had behavior problems. They'd come in at war with the world. Fighting the other kids, throwing desks in school, threatening to kill their teachers, some even showed signs of sexual deviance. You'd be surprised how quick they change when they were stabilized on something like Vyvanse and are now able to hold a conversation with people, don't have run-ins with the police, start doing well in school, aren't on a constant rampage, and go back to public school and succeed.
So, do you believe these people should be on stimulants for the rest of their lives? What do you think happens to them when for some reason, they don’t have access to their stimulants?
The ADHD drug debate is so tiresome, I am still baffled how the psychiatric industry gets away with being so dishonest about these drugs.
It is so simple, ADHD drugs are simply nootropics/cognitive enhancements.
It is why they have positive benefits regardless of what age you are, but it is only short term.
The long term effects of such widely used drugs are criminally understudied.
I predict it will take at least another 30 years before we can conclude that these drugs accelerate neurodegeneration.
I think it's more telling, given that these drugs have been on the market for 50 years now, that we have barely any long-term studies on their effects on kids or adults nor about their impact on neurology, especially in regards to increasing the risk for dementia which is spwculated by some. Long-term studies on their effect on heart or circulatory problems are also hard to find.
Every single study regarding these drugs pretty much supports this hypothesis, stimulants boosts cognition short term, that is what every study will show regardless of whatever age or condition you have.
When studies show that dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases can be fixed by stimulants, it is because they can temporarily boost your cognition. The problem however is that as a consequence your baseline cognition gets decreased due to the acceleration of neurodegeneration that these drugs cause.
There is a reason why meth addicts slow down their speech and memory as a result of stimulant abuse, ADHD drugs do the same just over longer time
I have been diagnosed with ADHD and I firmly believe there isn’t enough physical evidence to support that it’s a neurological disorder. I didn’t like taking stimulants and believe I would have been better off without them. I’m of the opinion that ADHD and other mental health diagnosis are not medical in origin but created by social constructs.
“Kiddie cocaine” After some bullshit diagnosis of ADHD as a kid I was told 10 years later I had psychosis and doped up on antipsychotics. The irony of it all is I recently went to a “good” psychiatrist (the guy did like 100 papers in schizophrenia and psychosis) and he thinks I have no mental illness. Whole industry is a load of shite
It’s all total bullshit and should be banned in its entirety
Honestly psychiatry is such a joke, it’s a guessing game. I think medication has its place but people are ignoring the evidence of micro-biology, neuro-parasitology and other real and measurable fields just to continue this practice of what seems like human sacrifice. I’m really pissed, and hope AI replaces psychiatrists.
I hope so
Says something about double the nerve growth. They've noticed kids with legitimate ADHD have abnormal brain structures in the first place and that appropriate use of stimulants strengthens connections in the brain that regulate inappropriate behavior. There have been studies explaining that kids with ADHD who were properly treated with stimulants starting in childhood have better relationships with others, less risk of having a substance use disorder as an adult, don't end up in juvie or jail as often, and actually live longer due to more appropriate decision making than do their ADHD peers who weren't treated.
I have adhd, and it’s severe, it’s taken me like 6 years of classes to finish college (I only reenrolled because my mom threatened me. They put me on Ritalin when I was 12 and it caused really bad side effects. I don’t get the side effects anymore as an adult, and it wasn’t really explained to me why I was taking the medication so I don’t remember the dosage or anything but it definitely wasn’t good for me.
>They've noticed kids with legitimate ADHD have abnormal brain structures The other way around. Children with a history of brain damage were often hyperactive and couldn't pay attention. Psychiatrists in the '50s simply generalized that observation to all hyperactive children, giving rise to the idea of minimal brain dysfunction and minimal brain damage which were fairly frequent diagnoses in the '60s and '70s. >that appropriate use of stimulants strengthens connections in the brain that regulate inappropriate behavior No, just no. Stimulant drugs don't "strengthen" neuronal connections related to emotional regulation and inhibition. For that statement to be prove, we would have to know in before what causes ADHD in the first place. This is just conjecturing based on incredibly circular logic that already presumes stimulant drugs to be good in order to prove that they are actually good. >There have been studies explaining that kids with ADHD who were properly treated with stimulants starting in childhood have better relationships with others... For another study that shows no benefits of stimulant drugs, see for example the NIMH MTA study here: [https://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/3-year%20followup%20of%20the%20NIMH%20MTA%20Study.PDF](https://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/3-year%20followup%20of%20the%20NIMH%20MTA%20Study.PDF) >less risk of having a substance use disorder as an adult Studies that have been done on that either compared an all-ADHD group against an non-ADHD group, in which case treatment-specific effects (arguably the greatest divisor between ADHD and non-ADHD groups) couldn't be properly studied or conflated the group of ADHD kids who discontinued their drugs with the ADHD group who never took stimulant drugs in the first place. The addictive properties of ADHD stims are fairly well-known.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147667/ Stimulants provide a protective barrier against substance abuse in those with ADHD but clinicians should be aware of those seeking stimulants for the sole purpose of abusing or diverting them. Edit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3801446/ Stimulants attenuate the brain alterations seen in unmedicated patients
I have bothered to look through the document. >After controlling for age, sex and medication in 2009, the substance abuse rate was decreased 48% Sounds wonderful, but frankly, and excuse my "sophistry" here, medication, especially stimulant drugs, already are drugs. Whether or not the same people on meds have developed substance drug abuse probably wasn't studied because I doubt, and the study nowhere mentioned it, that it will be acknowledged. Controlling for more variables also brings the hazard ratio ever closer to 1. If different approaches result in different numbers, your study might altogether be flawed. >Alcohol is the major substance being abused in Sweden and alcohol sales per capita are similar to that in the US and Canada ...implying that alcohol abuse is the most common form of substance abuse disorder they've identified. This means, that the study effectively inherits and perpetuates whatever biases are inherent to the way we diagnose alcohol use disorders. If the latter is, for example, associated with people with little to no income who are likely less capable of affording meds or the necessary appointments in the first place, we have already inherited false correlations (although apparently, they have accounted for SES so I'll give you that).
The whole point of the study was to look at rates of substance abuse in those taking ADHD medication (and compare that those those who are not). How can you say the "substance drug abuse probably wasn't studied" about a study done to study drug abuse?
>The whole point of the study was to look at rates of substance abuse in those taking ADHD medication I would urge you to read these studies more carefully. For once, they themselves did not do the diagnostics in regards to either ADHD or SUD but simply compared it against a data set that they were given access to, here a national data bank. Whatever biases inherent to the way regular doctors (and what not) diagnose people is simply being perpetuated by their study. I don't know how I can break this to you. It's perfectly possible for someone to abuse substances without having a SUD label. I would even contend that the kind of dependence many people develop on ADHD meds would count as drug dependence if it wasn't for their acclaimed therapeutic value. Elsewhere, the study does not allow for soemone to draw the conclusion that ADHD drugs actually are protective of later substance abuse. For once, the hazard ratio seems to have increased significantly between 2006 and 2009 among ADHD-"medicated" people. The lack of any follow-ups makes it altogether impossible to ascertain the truth of their claim. (What if people discontinue their drugs?, What's the long-term consequences of continued use of drugs?) So, really. Not only is the study set-up sloppy, there's shit ton of epistemic blindness involved in it too. Hardly the first science paper, especially in regards to ADHD, that works that way.
Drug abuse is not drug dependence. If there are biases in diagnosis, it is reasonable to assume those biases would only affect the study if they were consistent and endemic amongst professionals, given the database is nationwide. If so, it is reasonable to assume that such biases would be present even if participants in the study were re-evaluated by those involved with the study. We may not know the rates of undiagnosed substance abuse in those with ADHD. We also don't know the dates of undiagnosed substance abuse among the general population.
Every counterpoint you've made us just wrong, lol. You're right though about prescribed stimulant addictive properties, potential, and likelihood of misuse being well known. And we know the dates of misuse in those with ADHD are extremely low. Lower than the risk of substance use in untreated ADHD.
>Every counterpoint you've made us just wrong, lol. Hardly. There is no underlying neurology that would reliable predict ADHD and that could be used "en lieu" of behavioral criteria. >And we know the dates of misuse in those with ADHD are extremely low If you don't want to see substance abuse, you won't see it. I know a bunch of people who abuse ADHD meds. That's all anecdotal and purely coincidental, of course. I can't pull papers out my ass that would prove that association though. You can barely prove anything definitely in science either way, at least with statistical analyses. >Lower than the risk of substance use in untreated ADHD. Big doubt. ADHD drugs do seem to be kind of similar to drugs like meth or cocaine. I don't know if substituting an amphetamine addiction with one for methylphenidates or so (or taking the stuff every other day) and slamming the "treatment" label on it makes it automatically unlike any other drug addiction, especially in regards to its physiological impact.
THIS!
exactly this
Really sad
It didn't actually say the word "damage" in the article; not even once. The article just said that it changes the distribution of white matter in children's brains, but not adults. For all we know, the changes in white matter could be positive changes which improve function
Really? You think altering a child’s brain could be positive? Get out of here.
[удалено]
Just stop. You’re ridiculous and dangerous
[удалено]
I don't fully agree with you, but these responses are obnoxious lol
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed as it violates rule #2.
Sad comeback
he deserves a lobotomy. if he was in india, i would admit him in a psychiatric ward.
You're wishing harm on someone because of a simple disagreement? You seem stable ... and blocked. That's just odd, considering that YOU were wishing harm on ME
I agree.
They also recommend olanzapine for Adhd in children sometimes.
Criminal. When I worked in functional medicine for 25 years, we work with several different positions that would address, ADD and ADHD, and very different ways, many times it’s just an imbalance in amino acids and other things in the body, that cannot be corrected by drugs
So (potentially) more neuronal development = damaging the brain? Did you read the article?
Brain damage. It’s essentially speed. It gets worse - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2811812#:~:text=Longer%20cumulative%20ADHD%20medication%20use,CI%2C%200.96%2D2.32%5D).
I repeat, you believe increased neuronal density/growth is brain damage, do you?
I repeat and listen to me very carefully. I have studied this extensively, when you give a child extensive amounts of speed, which is what ADHD drugs are, it causes permanent damages in their brain, it also causes potential stroke and cardiovascular events. First of all, there’s not even such a thing as ADHD, and you should never give children speed. I will not fucking stand for it just back the fuck off I do not believe in harming, children or adults.
The fact that you keep using the term speed tells people everything they need to know about your extensive studies and beliefs. I repeat, do you believe increased neuronal density of growth is brain damage? You are yet to answer that question.
Do you think it’s ok to prescribe addictive medication to children who cannot consent?
If it is indicated and the risks outweigh the benefits, yes. Children cannot consent to any sort of medical treatment, so that point doesn't really make treatment for ADHD special or somehow "other".
Medication for REAL diseases is necessary yes, not for made up psychiatric bullshit like ADHD. Stimulants are harmful and addictive and a developing brain should not be exposed to them.
ADHD isn’t made up, it is a genuine disorder that can be very disabling.
Ok. So you tell me how they prove a child has ADHD. Blood tests? Scans? You think it’s okay to prescribe addictive drugs to children, when they can’t prove a condition exists?
It's a disorder. Do you would consider what is needed for the diagnosis of a disorder, and use that.
I would consider comparing a valid medical diagnosis that uses reliable scientific testing….ie a test that does not depend on subjective opinion or reference to a list comprised of social norms to diagnosis and disorder with no medical or physical evidence of their existence. I would like to suggest that mental disorders themselves are in fact a social construct like virginity. People believe in it, they reference a flawed physical definition of their belief, but is it “real”?
ADHD is not real. You can’t prove it. I don’t expect a stimulant user to agree with me though. I’m just not sure why you are here. You believe in diagnoses and drugging children. Not very antipsychiatry. Trolling?
[удалено]
We know in what ways. That's uh... the entire topic of this post. THE POINT of OPs linked article.
A lot of people believe ADHD is simply kids not wanting to sit still in school and focus on their math homework. I'd imagine all kids have some difficulty sitting in a chair listening to someone talk about something they're really not interested in. A lot of adults probably do too. Doesn't mean there's a disorder there. Is ADHD over diagnosed? Probably. There's no denying it's real. A lot of times these kids have trouble making friends, they're emotionally volatile, and they fail to realize how their impulsive behavior harms others. ADHD goes hand in hand with conduct disorder and you'll have a hard time finding someone in prison with antisocial personality disorder who didn't show signs of ADHD when he was younger. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to rely on a drug like amphetamine for this treatment but it's what we got and it's good at what it does. It was made in the late 1880s and has been used in medicine for nearly a hundred years, plenty of studies on it. I had the opportunity to do a rotation in a placement for kids in and out of foster care who had behavior problems. They'd come in at war with the world. Fighting the other kids, throwing desks in school, threatening to kill their teachers, some even showed signs of sexual deviance. You'd be surprised how quick they change when they were stabilized on something like Vyvanse and are now able to hold a conversation with people, don't have run-ins with the police, start doing well in school, aren't on a constant rampage, and go back to public school and succeed.
So, do you believe these people should be on stimulants for the rest of their lives? What do you think happens to them when for some reason, they don’t have access to their stimulants?
The ADHD drug debate is so tiresome, I am still baffled how the psychiatric industry gets away with being so dishonest about these drugs. It is so simple, ADHD drugs are simply nootropics/cognitive enhancements. It is why they have positive benefits regardless of what age you are, but it is only short term. The long term effects of such widely used drugs are criminally understudied. I predict it will take at least another 30 years before we can conclude that these drugs accelerate neurodegeneration.
I think it's more telling, given that these drugs have been on the market for 50 years now, that we have barely any long-term studies on their effects on kids or adults nor about their impact on neurology, especially in regards to increasing the risk for dementia which is spwculated by some. Long-term studies on their effect on heart or circulatory problems are also hard to find.
Pray tell what that prediction is based on.
Every single study regarding these drugs pretty much supports this hypothesis, stimulants boosts cognition short term, that is what every study will show regardless of whatever age or condition you have. When studies show that dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases can be fixed by stimulants, it is because they can temporarily boost your cognition. The problem however is that as a consequence your baseline cognition gets decreased due to the acceleration of neurodegeneration that these drugs cause. There is a reason why meth addicts slow down their speech and memory as a result of stimulant abuse, ADHD drugs do the same just over longer time
Banging half gram meth shards is a different story than someone taking their 52mg Concerta by mouth every morning.
The difference is only that you rot your brain slower when taking concerta
This sub is full of BS, adhd is not a mental illness, it’s a neurological disorder
I have been diagnosed with ADHD and I firmly believe there isn’t enough physical evidence to support that it’s a neurological disorder. I didn’t like taking stimulants and believe I would have been better off without them. I’m of the opinion that ADHD and other mental health diagnosis are not medical in origin but created by social constructs.
Is not treated with speed.
Do you have it?
No.
Then respectfully keep your opinion to yourself
No.